Westchester County Weighs in on New Rochelle's Echo Bay Project

EDITOR'S NOTE: The slideshow above displays photographs taken at low tide in the area of the proposed waterfront promenade, pedestrian bridge and esplanade around the perimeter of the County wastewater treatment plant.

The Echo Bay project would inject hundreds of millions of dollars into the local economy, create new jobs, expand public access to the Long Island Sound shore, create a new park, clean up a contaminated brownfield and deliver a significant net benefit to taxpayers. It has been designated a priority and received funding from Governor Cuomo’s regional economic development council, and has received strong support from the environmental and business communities. If the County Administration does not see a “need for this project” and thinks “the timing may not be right,” then it illustrates either a complete lack of any coherent economic development and environmental strategy, or a County planning process that has been hijacked by politics.

The County Planning Board review is significant because they own and operate the sewage treatment plant adjacent to the proposed Echo Bay Development.

The key finding in the review is that Westchester County does not support the location of a residential development adjacent to a vital wastewater treatment plant which is inconsistent with County policies. The report states bluntly "We do not advocate putting any residential use adjacent to a County wastewater treatment plant."

The approved draft from the Westchester County Planning Board was delivered to the City of New Rochelle Development department yesterday.

The County review takes issue with a key part of the Mayor's vision for a waterfront promenade, including a pedestrian bridge between the development and the sewage treatment plant and connecting the Echo Bay Development with Five Islands Park by way of a waterfront esplanade around the perimeter of the wastewater treatment plant.

The report states "We are not in favor of any proposed waterfront esplanade around the perimeter of the wastewater treatment plant."

Other issues raised in the review are concerns about building in a flood zone especially with what happened after super storm Sandy, the lack of clarity involving soil contaminates on the site and changes in the building code that would create a structure that is taller, more massive and denser than would be permitted without variances.

The report takes issue with the City's claim that Echo Bay is a "downtown project", noting that it is a long walk from downtown to Echo Bay and that any "open space" goals of the project already exist at the nearby Five Islands Park.

The report also notes that the plan is not presented within the context of planning for other development projects that are related to Echo Bay, in particular moving the City Yard to Beechwood Avenue at a cost of $25 million and the lack of clarity for the Armory since the Good Profit Works deal fell through.

Our understanding of the application, based on these materials, is as follows:

PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION

The project site consists of two City-owned tax parcels totaling 9.4 acres, located near the intersection of Main Street and Huguenot street (both one-way roads comprising US Route 1). The larger parcel is 6.5 acres and currently contains the City Yard associated with the Department of Public Works. The smaller parcel is 2.9 acres and contains a vacant armory which was acquired by the City in 1998. Both parcels have frontage along Main Street. The rear of each parcel is the shoreline along Echo Bay. The County-owned New Rochelle Wastewater Treatment Plant (NRWWTP) is located immediately across one of the bay’s inlets from the development site.

The redevelopment of the properties surrounding Echo Bay has been a City initiative since the Main/Echo Urban Renewal Plan was written in 1983. While, at that time, the zoning for this area was industrial, the City reexamined the area in 2002 for residential uses, which culminated in a Feasibility Analysis that concluded that low-rise, high-end residences should be constructed along with niche retail and office space. In 2008, a plan was presented for redevelopment of 26 acres (10 acres of which were in private ownership) including 710 units of housing, 150,000 square feet of retail, 300 hotel rooms, open space and 1,950 parking spaces.

As a result of market conditions, the current proposal is scaled back dramatically. The current project site of 9.4 acres contains only City-owned sites. While the initial proposal included several buildings, the current proposal is for only two buildings. For the City Yard site, a mixed use building is proposed containing 285 apartments (71 studio, 137 one-bedroom, 77 two-bedroom with 10% affordable) and 25,000 square feet of retail space located along Main Street. Parking for the residential and retail uses would be in a garage built into the slope of the site, screened by the retail and residential amenity space. Above the parking will be an internal courtyard that begins at the first level of residential space. The adjacent Armory site would be developed by a separate organization, with the goal of preserving and repurposing the Armory building. (The armory had been proposed to be demolished under the 2008 plan.)

While the draft EIS references a “letter of agreement” between the City and a developer named “Good Profit” to repurpose the building as a farmers market with restaurant space, it is our understanding from recent news articles that this agreement has expired, leaving the exact plans for the Armory uncertain.

Regardless of the exact plans for the Armory, the overall site plan shows open space at the rear of each parcel, providing public open space along Echo Bay. This would feature a public waterfront esplanade along the shore and a small non-motorized boat launch. Parking for this open space would be provided with 45 spaces at grade on the Armory parcel, behind the building. A pedestrian bridge is proposed to connect the esplanade to the NRWWTP parcel, but an exact route for continued pedestrian access is not discussed in the draft EIS.

APPLICATION REVIEW SUMMARY

General comments

We are concerned about the need for this project. While there are a number of project aspects that we are supportive of, this must be balanced against other factors, to determine if this project is a good investment.

Given the uncertainty of other development projects in the surrounding area, the timing may not be right to start developing this vision of Echo Bay.

Consistency with County Planning Board policies

While the project appears to be consistent with local planning policies and documents, the fact that zoning amendments are being requested may indicate the size of the project may not be as consistent with the City’s original vision

While there are aspects of the project that have consistency with Westchester 2025, the location of a residential development adjacent to a vital wastewater treatment plant is not consistent with County policies

Impacts to County facilities and services.

We do not advocate putting any residential use adjacent to a County wastewater treatment plant

We are not in favor of any proposed waterfront esplanade around the perimeter of the wastewater treatment plant. A discussion must be undertaken with WCDEF concerning the proposed pedestrian bridge between the development and the plant.

Because work is shown on County sewer infrastructure within the site, this must be coordinated with WCDEF

The draft EIS correctly notes that increased sewage flows from the site into the County sewer system should be offset through inflow and infiltration (I&I) mitigation.

The applicant must contact the County Department of Public Works and Transportation regarding Bee-Line bus service to the site.

Sufficient space should be set aside on the site to accommodate the storage of recyclables under the recently expanded County recycling law.

Additional comments

Because the site is located within a flood zone, there is a major concern that the new development will be impacted by future storms and storm surges.

The lack of clarity involving soil contaminates on the site raises a concern that the site can successfully be remediated for residential use.

We commend the applicant for pursuing a LEED Silver certification for this project.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Project need. The benefits of the proposed redevelopment, as stated in the draft EIS, include:

Take the critical first step in redevelopment of the Echo Bay area;
Clean up contaminated land on City’s waterfront;
Activate a central piece of New Rochelle with open access to the Long Island Sound;
Restore approximately 10 acres of underutilized waterfront land to a productive and attractive use for long term benefit of City residents;
Enhance the long-term sustainability of the Bay through stormwater improvements,
Water-enhanced uses and ecological restoration;
Open view corridors to the bay from Main Street;
Make available waterfront land for public use and activity;
Increase retail activity on East Main Street; and
Enable options for future use by others of the Armory.

While the above are laudable goals, they should be balanced with potential public costs and area impacts. We note that the Echo Bay redevelopment represents a significant expense to the public. The draft EIS mentions $25 million in City-backed general obligation bonds that will be sold to finance the relocation of the City Yard. The payment of taxes would be replaced with a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) set up by the New Rochelle IDA. Potential impacts are discussed by subject below.

The draft EIS appears to describe the Echo Bay redevelopment as a part of downtown New Rochelle, in terms of project purpose and need. We disagree with this assessment, noted on page III-5: “The Project provides downtown New Rochelle with a ‘toe in the water’ via a mixed-use building and public open space amenities with its front door on Main Street and its backyard in Echo Bay.” However, the site is separated from the downtown core of New Rochelle by several car dealerships, strip fast food restaurants and a windowless mall. It is a lengthy walk across this area to the transit center. Given this distance and separation, the Echo Bay project is not a downtown project. In light of this, perhaps the open space goals of the project already exist at the nearby Five Islands Park.

2. Uncertainty of other developments impacting the proposed plan. It is our longstanding belief that that the most successful developments are the ones that are planned for comprehensively. While the Echo Bay project represents a City-owned site with redevelopment potential, it is not presented within the context of planning for other development projects that are related to Echo Bay. Two uncertainties are at the forefront of this concern:

RELOCATION OF CITY YARD

While the draft EIS identifies a site on Beechwood Avenue where the City Yard would be relocated to, the draft EIS does not specify a timeline for the move, the acreage of the proposed site and a cost. While the draft EIS notes the November 2012 approval for $25 million of City general obligation bonds, as well as a $2.5 million contribution from the applicant, to be applied to a new yard, the full cost is not disclosed and it appears to be uncertain when this could happen.

ARMORY PARCEL

Because the draft EIS was unable to articulate an exact proposal for the Armory, the draft EIS contained numerous alternative proposals of how the mixed-use building could relate to the Armory, regardless of what is developed. As a result, the draft EIS ultimately describes the proposed mixed-use building as a stand-alone project. This may not be the best strategy to create a comprehensive vision for Echo Bay, particularly since the draft EIS notes that any Armory proposal could also include the Nelstad and Mancuso parcels, located immediately behind the Armory parcel. The recent withdrawal of the Good Profit plans for the Armory adds more uncertainty to the City’s overall vision for Echo Bay.

3. Consistency with local plans and zoning. The proposed mixed-use building and associated open space appear to be consistent with planning documents that the City has produced over the years, including the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program and the City Harbor Management Plan. In addition the Main/Echo Urban Renewal Plan calls for high-density residential development on the site. According to the draft EIS, the Urban Renewal Plan is the only local document that requires amending to permit the project, since the project calls for mixed use featuring retail; the Urban Renewal Plan does not call for retail and restaurant uses on the site. We support the proposed amendment as we believe the site would benefit from a mix of uses.

We note that the City zoning code does not currently permit the density proposed in the project. The applicant is seeking a number of zoning text amendments to increase the density and size of the proposed building. In particular, the applicant is seeking to increase the maximum allowable building height to 65 feet within 300 feet of Main Street (currently 50). Allowable building height beyond 300 feet of Main Street would be increased to four stories (currently three) with a maximum height of 55 feet (currently 30). Floor-area-ratio (FAR) is proposed to be increased to 1.25 (currently 0.75) and the minimum lot area per dwelling requirement would be deleted. The resulting changes would allow a structure that is taller, more massive and denser than would be permitted in the PWD-5 – Planned Waterfront (5 story) District.

We encourage the City to consider the scale of proposed zoning changes in the context of surrounding development and potential future development. As now presented, the large and tall Echo Bay building will be developed in relative isolation, since none of the other surrounding parcels appear to have viable projects at this time.

4. Consistency with County Planning Board policies. The draft EIS correctly points out that the proposed development is consistent with a number of the policies of Westchester 2025, particularly with respect to providing affordable housing and increasing access to open space. The proposed building design, which will contribute to the pedestrian streetscape on Main Street, with parking screened from view inside the building, is also consistent with Westchester 2025.

The policies of Westchester 2025 also call for the support of vital facilities. In this case, the County owned New Rochelle Wastewater Treatment Plan (NRWWTP) is immediately adjacent to the project site and is undergoing a capital improvement to expand the facility. While the draft EIS states that “the project would not be incompatible with the facility,” we caution that residential uses may not be a complimentary use to the plant.

5. Bridge to wastewater treatment plant. The draft EIS describes a proposed pedestrian bridge, across one of the bay’s inlets, to connect the waterfront esplanade on the project site to the NRWWTP. Such a connection would facilitate a stated goal for the project of providing “a physical connection of the project site with Five Islands Park through the WWTP parcel.”

The County Department of Environmental Facilities has stated that a waterfront esplanade around the water-side perimeter of the plant, as had been shown in the prior 2008 plan, is not feasible based on plant operations. Locating a pathway parallel to the north boundary of the plant parcel so as to connect the bridge and Le Fevres Lane is theoretically possible, however a discussion must be undertaken with DEF concerning such a connection.

6. Proposed work on County sewer infrastructure. The draft EIS notes that the site contains easements accommodating both City and County sanitary sewer infrastructure. In particular, the draft EIS notes that the applicant is proposing the reconstruction of a County concrete interception chamber as a part of the construction. DEF must be contacted regarding this proposed work.

7. County sewer impacts. The draft EIS notes that sewer demands created by the new development are between 45,000 and 50,000 gallons per day. This increase will add to the volume of sewage flow requiring treatment at the NRWWTP. As a matter of County Department of Environmental Facilities’ policy, the applicant must provide reductions in inflow/infiltration (I&I) at a ratio of three for one. The draft EIS correctly notes this policy.

8. Bee-line bus service. Bee-Line bus stop #2387 is located along the site’s frontage with Main Street, at the intersection with Stephenson Boulevard. This bus stop, which is currently a basic stop with only a bus stop sign, provides access to Bee-Line Route 60. The plans should be revised to show the location of this stop. We recommend that the applicant contact the County Department of Public Works and Transportation (WCDPW&T) regarding Bee-Line bus service to the site. Given that the proposed use of the site is changing from a City Yard to a mixed-use development, changes to the bus stop may be warranted or desired. In addition, changes in traffic management, though the addition of proposed traffic signals on Main Street should be brought to the attention of WCDPW&T as it could impact bus operations in the immediate area.

9. Location within flood zone. The draft EIS notes that a substantial portion of the development site is located within a flood zone. This has been confirmed again by the recently released FEMA flood advisory maps. This is a major concern with the proposed development given the storm surge that occurred in some parts of our region as part of superstorm Sandy. The architectural drawings do not show the proposed building to be raised above grade. It would appear that a storm surge could severely damage units located in “panhandle” of the development that extends towards the water’s edge. The final EIS should address this issue and identify the precautions the applicant intends to take to reduce flood risk. We note the draft EIS describes shoreline stabilization along with plantings as the only measure currently proposed. We do not believe this to be enough to prevent storm surge events, particularly given the Stephenson Brook outfall, which is also adjacent to the site.

10. Site remediation. The draft EIS notes that there are several known contaminants on both the Armory and City Yard sites. The City Yard site, in particular, given that it has operated as a public works facility for almost 100 years, has many known and potential contaminants. The draft EIS states that the full level of contamination is not yet known and that a Phase II environmental site assessment investigation will occur between the draft and final EIS stage of the SEQR review. This level of uncertainty raises a concern that the site may be found to be difficult to remediate for residential purposes. The draft EIS does not identify a cost or a funding source for this work (beyond likely participation in the NYSDEC brownfield cleanup program). The feasibility and expense of the cleanup should be addressed in greater detail in the final EIS.

11. Provisions for recycling. As more detailed plans are developed, the City should request the applicant to verify that sufficient storage measures are provided to accommodate the expanded County recycling program that includes plastics with numbers 1 through 7. New County regulations for plastic recycling may be found at http://environment.westchestergov.com

12. Green building technology. We commend the application for proposing green building technology as part of the proposed building. The draft EIS indicates that LEED Silver certification will be sought. We support this effort.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.

There are 9 Comments

It’s amazing what can be said and written when you don’t have a three minute limit!

I just want to say that many people Democratic and or Republican spoke for and against the project. It is nice to have a fresh objective take on the project from an outside source that backs up what many of us have been saying. There are still too many questions, to many challenges and objections. Mr. Mayor, City Council, the answers are eagerly awaited by the vast majority of residents of New Rochelle. We need to get this right!

I hope The City Council reads the report carefully. Take the advice from the citizens of New Rochelle and the Westchester County Planning Board. In their comments they said, “Given the uncertainty of other development projects in the surrounding area, the timing may not be right to start developing this vision of Echo Bay.” Much if not all of what the Westchester County Planning Board had to say in their comments Echo’s the words of a vast majority of residents of New Rochelle.

Take a breath and a new look. Take a step back; withdraw the Forest City Echo Bay Proposal. Like it was suggested by Commissioner of Development Luiz C. Aragon for the Armory Site, open the project up to a new RFI process which could then include the entire area. Expand the possibilities; this development should be looked at not as The Mayor’s project, not as a Vet’s Project but as a community project for the betterment of all New Rochelle. It must include a vision for all which includes saving the Armory in some way shape and form for the Vet’s. Take the politics out of the waterfront. That’s one way to start cleaning things up!

I will repeat what I said from Citizens to be Heard, “The City’s vision for the redevelopment of Echo Bay is no longer clear as it has changed like so much here in New Rochelle. There are still too many questions, to many challenges and objections. The answers are eagerly awaited by the vast majority of residents of New Rochelle. New Rochelle understands that value of a revitalized waterfront and eagerly wants to achieve it, at what cost and with which developer? Please think twice before you move forward. Show the courage that you did when you saw the process for the police commissioners plan was flawed. You only get this one chance and will be saddled with its success or failure so take the time a new direction doesn’t have to take long for this area to be developed and move forward. It just needs to be handled in the right way.”

In the Mayor’s own words from his State of the City remarks, “Now, with a new season of possibility and promise upon us, there’s much more we can do. By enhancing partnerships with communities throughout the region, we can deliver greater value in exchange for every dollar and chart a course of fiscal sustainability. And through forward-looking planning, we can strengthen our business climate, improve our environment, and help more people achieve their potential.”

Let’s help the people of New Rochelle for once. Now is a time for the City Council to step up and achieve their potential as leaders and thinkers.

Amazing how the issues seem clear when the controversy is stripped clean of the candidate-part time mayor, ribbon-cutter's lofty rhetoric. The site is no garden spot, no matter how many times Brafertricehyrak (short for Bramson/Fertel/Rice/Hyden/Rackman) say it is. With Chuck Strome in hiding following the embarrassing "coiled serpent" flag dust up and development director Luiz Aragon on the phone with his headhunter after the beat down at a north end neighborhood' meeting concerning Echo Bay the other night, how long before the council members themselves venture out into the daylight to defend their sorry-looking albatross-of-an-urban renewal project?

But what will the mayor do if this project doesn't go through? I mean, this is the only thing he could have even possibly accomplished as mayor. Who wouldn't want an apartment overlooking a beautiful sewage treatment plant and a pile of mud?

Guess what, if the city just maintained the city yard rather than letting it fall apart, the taxpayers would be that much richer. Another glorious waste of tax dollars on a project that was an obvious failure to everyone but Bramson.

This Project was doomed from the start.
Why give away land, Why give tax abatements?
We seem to be intimided by developers, They promise the world and deliver nothing but profits in there own pockets.
The Mayor says we have promise and diversity!
Diversity is fine, if it pays TAXES.
Our city Council and Mayor should rent a bus and drive through down town New Rochelle and see the Promise they have delivered.
Wake up New Rochelle. Time to Clean House

So on another front, the Mayor has now scheduled an eminent domain resolution on property in the West End so that he can forcibly take over property that has a market value of over $3 million. This will ocurr this Tuesday. Shouldn't the first effort be to negotiate with the owners and not publicly threaten eminent domain from the get go.
Anyway, so the environmental disaster on the West End community begins. An assault on the health and welfare on our children, elderly and community of color. The true face of the Mayor is out of the closet. He's a careless, callous, opportunist who has no inkling of what working class people do or where they live. The first elderly person or child that is directly hurt or killed by the fleet of DPW trucks or sanitation trucks rumbling down our narrow streets will be his fault. Are you ready with your sound bite Señor Alcalde?

And have you ever seen how these DPW workers drive trucks? They speed up and down streets so they can get home early and drive the wrong way up one way streets. In addition, you are lucky to find your garbage pail after they empty it because they just throw it and the lid anywhere they please. All they want to do is rush to finish their garbage routes because their contract allows them to go home as soon as they finish. We are paying for these guys to work 8 hours a day and they are working half that and getting paid for the 8. Another waste of taxpayer dollars.

What property is that? You mean the Beechwood Ave. property, it's worth that much? Wow. He probably offered them a scintilla of that and they refused.

"He's a careless, callous, opportunist who has no inkling of what working class people do or where they live."

Well, duh. And whose fault is that? Why, the good citizens of New Rochelle who voted him in FOR THREE TERMS. And who would vote him in FOR ANOTHER TERM if he was able to run. And who will VOTE IN HIS HAND PICKED SUCCESSOR.

The County doesn't approve of this plan, the people who live around Echo Bay do not approve of it, Good Profit pulled out, and at least two councilman do not approve of it. Where is the strong support of the project Bramson refers to?

This project benefits only the developer and Bramson. As it stands, it has inadequate parking, it provides no view of the waterfront for local residents, it gives the developer substantial tax breaks at the taxpayers expense, it will lead to additional costs when the bay has to be dredged, the jobs it will create are temporary, low paying and transient in nature, and it lacks any meaningful retail and sales tax revenue.

In short, this vision is being pushed solely by a short-sighted mayor who hopes to advance his political career and the expense of NR residents.